Equitable and collegial treatment of fixed term faculty
greatly benefits the University of Oregon and its teaching mission.

Central to improving the employment status of NTTIF at the
University is the need for institution-wide elaboration of written policies
that specify the employment practices and rights of faculty in the NTTIF
ranks.These policies should be
elaborated at the University level, codified by the Office for Academic Affairs
and the University Senate, and developed at the departmental or unit level,
where more specific policies may be tailored to the needs of individual
programs.

The May 2002 Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the
Status of NTTIF noted that of 41 units canvassed during the 2001-2002 year, 7
reported having written policies relating to the employment conditions of
NTTIF, while 31 units reported having no written policies.The Report went on to recommend
“that each unit with NTTIF develop and observe a policy which both
mandates the terms of employment of NTTIF and adequately describes the
experience of NTTIF in that specific unit.”The committee further recommended that “AAUP
guidelines be consulted and reflected in departmental policy statements
regarding NTTIF” (Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of
Nontenure-Track, Instructional Faculty, May 8, 2002, hereafter referred to as
the 2002 NTTIF Committee Report).

The committee’s research during the current year
indicates a wide variation in the nature of NTTIF employment practices across
departments and units; even those programs that have written policies show
significant variance.Some of these
policies are, in the view of the committee, potential models for adoption by a
wider spectrum of the campus community.The committee begins in this report and will continue in subsequent
reports to elaborate on those it views as candidates for “best
practices” in their respective areas.In part, the committee sees its role as one of facilitating
communication about NTTIF employment practices among the different units on
campus.

The Committee also found during its work this year that
several types of NTTIF appointments are used in the university, but no standard
language or practice is used across schools and departments in identifying
these types of appointments.This problem is compounded by the difference between rank and title:an instructor’s rank is
established by the Office for Academic Affairs, but departments have great
leeway in assigning a wide variety of titles to established ranks.Developing standard language
about NTTIF and a taxonomy for the main types of appointments should be useful
in developing university guidelines that help departments to develop practices
and policies.The Office for
Academic Affairs uses three informal categories, as follows:

Instructors:Regular, full time renewable
instructors who view the UO as a career or key job.Many such instructors work at the UO for years or even
decades.Most work full-time, and
nearly all work more than .75 FTE.

Regular Adjunct
Instructors:Instructors who teach
a class in successive quarters or years and are therefore renewed by
departments, but who do not teach full time and often have other full-time
work.The University of Oregon Faculty
Handbook defines adjunct faculty as whose
who have “another position, usually outside the university, e.g.,
physician, architect, social worker, etc., and who is employed to teach on an
occasional basis or to provide some other academic service within the
university.”

Intermittent and
Irregular Adjuncts/Instructors:Truly irregular instructors who are often hired on an “as
needed” basis and who do not generally remain at the UO for long
periods.They are usually not
renewed and sometimes do not have the qualifications for more permanent
employment at a university.

The committee felt that its concern lay most with the first
group.However, instructors in all
three groups would benefit from the development of general UO guidelines,
currently in process in the office of the Provost for Academic Affairs and the
College of Arts and Sciences, and more complete and consistent policies and
practices at the departmental level.To this end, the Committee interviewed representatives from a number of
departments who already had well-developed procedures in place, and began work
on “best practice” benchmarks that can be used by departments as
they develop their own policies.The end goal is improving the ability of NTTIF to successfully complete
their part of the University’s teaching mission.

The need for codification of policies relating to NTTIF is
pressing for additional reasons.Codification of NTTIF employment practices has been a national trend,
and recent policy documents from the AAUP and AFT recommend steps to be taken
by universities in this arena (see Guidelines for Good Practice, Part-time and Nontenure-track Faculty, AAUP,
<http://www.aaup.org/Issues/part-time/Ptguide.htm>, and Standards
of Good Practice in the Employment of Part-time/Adjunct Faculty, AFT,
<http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/parttime/index.html>).A number of AAU universities have
recently adopted detailed policies governing the employment of NTTIF (for
example, Indiana University; see
<http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/ntthbk/ntthbk.html>) or issued major
reports calling for movement in this direction (see University of North
Carolina,
<http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/aa/reports/ntt_faculty/index.htm>).

These documents point to important reasons for moving to
codify employment practices relating to NTTIF.First, for universities, is the growing recognition of the
need to improve the employment status of a labor force that accounts for
approximately 40% of undergraduate faculty teaching positions nationally (a
need that includes improving the recruiting and retention abilities of
universities relating to NTTIF).This need is broader in that universities face a decline in public
respect and confidence if their faculty are underpaid, part-time, and lacking
full professional status in their disciplines.Second, the NTTIF obviously need supportive employment
conditions, fair compensation, and opportunities for professional
advancement—needs that are often unmet in a labor force that is described
as being exploited because of the imbalance in the supply and demand for
academic labor.Finally, the AAUP
in particular is concerned that tenure-track faculty may face an erosion of
academic freedom and the principle of tenure with the swelling of a
non-tenure-track workforce and the lack of commensurate employment security and
professional employment standards.

II.NEED
FOR INSTITUTIONAL-LEVEL RESPONSE AND

“GUIDELINES
FOR GOOD PRACTICE”

At the University level, the focus of NTTIF employment
policies and rights should have two complementary aims:to set goals for the improvement of the employment status and
professional caliber of the NTTIF workforce and to set policies that help implement these goals.Policies should include both institution-wide employment practices and rights,
and a set of guidelines and a timetable for department and unit-level efforts
to develop policies for their NTTIF ranks.

One way the institutional-level effort can provide
leadership is to establish “guidelines for good practice” relating
to both institutional-and
departmental-level NTTIF employment practices and rights.Such guidelines should address how the
University’s use of NTTIF relates to the academic mission of the
University, as well as the specific employment conditions of NTTIF.The committee notes, for example, that
the AAUP recommends that institutions limit the use of part-time,
nontenure-track faculty to “no more than 15 percent of the total
instruction within the institution, and no more than 25% of the total
instruction within any given department”(AAUP Guidelines).Data from the 2002 NTTIF Committee
Report indicated that on the UO campus, NTTIF, while constituting 36.5% of the
total faculty, actually comprise 44.5% of the instructional faculty.These percentages refer to the number
of faculty; the percentage of courses taught by NTTIF could not be precisely
determined, as teaching loads across campus “vary considerably in both
NTTIF and TTIF appointments” (2002 NTTIF Committee Report).The AAUP also indicates that where
“an institution has legitimate needs for a specialized class of faculty
in part-time or fractional-time position, the institution should have policies
that provide for their long-term contract stability and tenure” (AAUP Guidelines).

The benefits to the University and its faculty of engaging
these issues are clear.The
University will have demonstrated its commitment to maintaining the highest
caliber of faculty and standards of academic freedom to those who conduct
research and teach here, as well as to state and national publics who are
concerned with the University’s maintenance of high professional
standards.

III.DEPARTMENTAL-LEVEL
NTTIF EMPLOYMENT

PRACTICES
AND RIGHTS

In this section the committee elaborates
the categories and objectives of establishing clear NTTIF employment practices
and rights at the department level.Suggestions for specific policies in some of these areas await further
evaluation of the relevant literature and data regarding current practices at
the UO, while others have already been looked at by the committee in more depth
and are thus more developed in this report.

Each departmental level unit should develop written policies
on the employment practices and rights of NTTIF in the following areas:

·Description
of Duties

·Regular
Evaluations

·Possibility
for Advancement

·Opportunities
for Professional Development

·Fair
Compensation

·Timely
Notice

·Provision
of Resources

·Participation
in Governance

·Grievances
and Appeals

·Orientation
and Rights

The teaching mission of the University can be carried out
only with a qualified and stable instructional staff.As described elsewhere in this report, the UO has come to
rely more and more on NTTIF to carry a significant portion of this mission.With the increase in NTTIF personnel,
and in response to the urgency with which this corps is often hired, a number
of inconsistencies and problem areas in hiring practices, timely notice, course
assignment policies, and working conditions have appeared.This section of the report hints at
possible recommendations for future action, not in terms of university-wide
requirements, but rather cast as “best practices.”The recommendations that follow are not
“pie-in-the-sky” impossibilities; many come from the
committee’s interviews with units on campus to find current best
practices or from the AAUP’s or AFT’s guidelines for best
practices.

Description of Duties

All appointments, including
part-time appointments, should have a description of the specific professional
duties required.Complex
institutions may require multiple models of faculty appointments consistent
with the diverse contributions appropriate to the institution’s needs.

Regular
Evaluations

The performance of faculty members
on renewable term appointments, full-time and part-time, should be regularly
evaluated with established criteria appropriate to their positions.The University has established policies
for carrying out reviews and observations of tenure-related faculty, and
agreements with the GTFF stipulate evaluation procedures for graduate teaching
fellows.NTTIF should have similar
expectations for evaluation and the corresponding protections as the other
groups of teachers on campus.

Possibility
for Advancement

By title and definition, NTTIF are employed in non-tenure related
positions.Current University
policy provides opportunity in non-tenure related positions for advancement
from instructor to senior instructor.In addition, the University has a small number of tenure-related
instructor and senior instructor positions.Someone who is employed in a non-tenure related instructor
or senior instructor position in theory is eligible to apply and compete for a
tenure-related instructor, senior instructor, or assistant professor position
when or if it is available.Historically, the number of instructors who have been able to move to a
tenure-related position has been small, and instances have been documented
where instructors have been discouraged from applying for such positions for
reasons other than their qualifications.A progression from being in a non-tenure related position to a
tenure-related one is currently not an option, despite earlier models where
senior instructors were eligible to be promoted to the rank of assistant
professor with tenure.

A number of policies keep non-tenured instructors or senior
instructors from moving into the tenured ranks.First, the UO Faculty Handbook states that faculty may be
tenured only if they are hired as a result of a national search, or, in some
cases, a regional search.Many, if
not most, instructors are hired from a pool of applicants, frequently just
prior to the beginning of a term’s classes, a situation that precludes time
for a national search.Second,
these positions have been justified as being used to hire part-time, fixed-term
faculty to meet enrollment fluctuations.Clearly, this rationale does not apply to an NTTIF instructor or senior
instructor who has been reappointed for many years, often decades, the group identified
as “Instructors,” as opposed to “Adjuncts,” in Section
I above.

The AAUP Guidelines for Good Practice addresses these problems when
itstates
that “Institutions exploit faculty members when they appoint numerous
part-time faculty in a single department or renew temporary faculty year after
year without offering them raises in pay, access to benefits, opportunities for
promotion, or eligibility for tenure and the procedural protections essential
to academic freedom.”These Guidelines further state:“In circumstances in which an
institution has legitimate needs for a specialized class of faculty in
part-time or fractional-time positions, the institution should have policies
that provide for their long-term contract stability and for tenure” and
that “institutions should avoid appointing, and should certainly not
reappoint, faculty members whose qualifications or performance are so far below
the prevailing institutional standard as to make tenure eligibility an
impossibility.”

Part-time faculty should be given fair consideration when
part-time positions are converted into full-time positions.The evidence suggests that part-time
employment often works as a disadvantage on the job market when applicants are
considered for full-time tenure-track positions.Departments should be as scrupulous to avoid this type of
discrimination as they are required to be in avoiding other forms of
discrimination.

Decisions on compensation,
promotion, and tenure should be based on the specified duties of the position.The regular evaluation process should
be clearly linked to the possibility of salary increase, contract extension,
change in job title, and other possibilities for professional development and
support.

Many departments use a progression
to Senior Instructor after an Instructor has been in rank six years.Senior Instructors typically receive
two-year contracts, receive timely notice, and are eligible for
sabbatical.Since more is expected
of the Instructor when promoted to Senior Instructor in terms of department and
university service, as well as professional development, research, and
sometimes publishing, a reduction in course load following promotion would be
equitable.

Departments now working on a
six-year “up or out” promotion policy for instructors should be
aware that this policy is not used university wide, and that currently an
instructor need not be promoted at the end of six-years to be retained.Policies should be clarified and
standardized to maximize (1) encouragement of continued professional
development of the teaching staff and (2) job security for capable teachers.

Although the underlying concern in
this area is job security and fairness for NTTIF who have made a life-long
investment in the University, another question that arises is the protection of
academic freedom:does teaching
deserve the same protections as research?If so, NTTIF should be given the same guarantees in
this regard as TTF.

Opportunities for Professional
Development

Policies should be developed that
extend opportunities for professional development to NTTIF that include support
for travel to conferences, time release for conferences, and access to
university resources.

NTTIF are technically eligible for
paid leaves, but many units cannot afford to cover the costs.Approval for sabbatical leave should be
standardized so that senior instructors in those departments/schools that
cannot fund sabbaticals for them from their budgets will not be denied this
opportunity.Funding should be
provided in the same manner as for tenure-track faculty as long as all other
requirements are met.

Fair
Compensation

Compensation for part-time
employment should be a corresponding fraction of a full-time position having
qualitatively similar responsibilities and qualifications.Compensation should include such
essential fringe benefits as health insurance, life insurance, and retirement
contributions.As fringe benefits
typically accrue only for appointments at the .5 FTE level or higher, NTTIF
appointments should not be manipulated to keep them artificially below this
level as a method to avoid paying benefits.

A number of units on campus have
NTTIF who have served in the same capacity for years.The University should recognize the contributions of these
long-term faculty by providing them with similar retirement options to those
offered to tenure-related faculty: 3-year retirement notice with 6% salary
increases, in-line with TT guidelines; 600-hour appointments at the end of
their career; and the benefits of emeritus status once retired.

Timely
Notice

A number of issues surrounding
timely notification were noted during the committee’s investigation of
NTTIF practices on campus.Best
standards/practices regarding what is “timely” in each situation
still must be defined, but ideally, timely notice should be the same for NTTIF
as for tenure-related faculty.

Application and hiring.Committee
interviews found a wide range of practicessurrounding application and hiring procedures.In general, appointment of NTTIF rests
with department chairs, with approval by administrators up the chain.With increased University oversight of
affirmative action policies in recent years, many department chairs have been
forced to make NTTIF appointments relatively late in the hiring cycle or as
“emergency” appointments, thus skirting requirements for national
searches.The use of a
“pool” of applicants is an established university policy (see job
listings on the Human Resources website, http://hr.uoregon.edu).The committee recognizes that this
practice can be useful in meeting the range of staffing needs of each unit on
campus, but the University should specify a standardized format for announcing
and applying for NTTIF positions to avoid the most obvious abuses.The effective loopholes of emergency
appointments and misuse of applicant pools only damages the University’s
credibility and does not serve to guarantee a highly professionalized teaching
staff.

Appointments and class
assignments.A well prepared professorate is a crucial component of a
high-quality teaching mission.All
teachers, regardless of appointment type, should have sufficient time to put
together coherent courses, with access to the necessary materials.Committee members have had reports of
last-minute appointments that do not allow teachers to order books, solicit
interlibrary loan materials, prepare syllabi, set up course web pages, and so
forth, in effect diminishing the students’ learning experience and
creating undue stress on the faculty member.Moreover, such appointments often exclude NTTIF from faculty
orientation sessions, usually held once per year before fall term.NTTIF should receive timely notice in
appointment and reappointment and, for those with longer fixed-term contracts,
in course assignment changes, so that courses may be thoroughly prepared and
quality maintained.

Termination or change in
appointment.Although timely notice terms are explicitly stated on the
employee’s contract when the job offer is made, many NTTIF have
reasonable expectations that their contracts will be renewed for additional
contract periods at a similar (or greater) FTE level.Alerting NTTIF of imminent termination or nonrenewal of
their contracts or changes/reductions in FTE is a common professional courtesy
so that they have the opportunity to make adjustments in their benefit coverage
or maintain their livelihood with a timely search for other employment.

Provision of Resources

NTTIF must be provided the
resources necessary to perform their assigned duties in a professional manner,
including such things as appropriate office space, necessary supplies, support
services, and equipment.The
Committee suggests that faculty support and resources available to NTTIF be
more accessible, timely, and detailed at both the campus wide and department or
college levels when an instructor is first appointed.The committee’s research indicates that often NTTIF do
not learn what resources are available to them when preparing their classes
until they have been teaching on campus for many terms.Copies ofcourse packets including a detailed
syllabus, textual materials, test banks, and homework packets would be
especially helpful to new NTTIF.Blackboard-based courses could be also be copied for new NTTIF instructors
to enhance or build upon.

One immediate improvement that
could be made is the development of a central depository, including a virtual
one in website form, outlining available support and resources for
instructional faculty campus wide, as well as links to the support and
resources provided by individual schools and departments.An example from the Charles H.
Lundquist College of Business Mission, Goals, and Policy Guidelines Appendices (dated September 2000) are good examples:
“Instructional Support Services” discusses everything from
submitting work orders, photocopying, faxing, office supplies, travel
authorizations, and other support services; “Professional Support
Policy” discusses several guidelines and details of professional support
accounts, travel, association memberships, professional subscriptions, computer
equipment, and outside employment; and “Faculty Travel Policy”
details the amounts and methods of travel authorization and reimbursement.If these policies were kept in the
virtual environment they could be a dynamic and up-to-date resource for all
faculty: full time, part time, tenured and non-tenured.Such manuals should distinguish which
services are available only to TTF and which are also available to NTTIF.

The UO Faculty
Handbook should include a new special
section for NTTIF faculty; if maintained on-line, university policies could be
continually updated and given timely attention.Currently, methods of making NTTIF faculty aware of
information about resources and policies are not readily available.The Faculty Handbook, for example, has not been updated since 1999.

If information about available
resources were maintained in a virtual environment, it could be updated
continuously, while being at the same time easy and convenient to access.At the University level, NTTIF faculty,
especially those who are both part time and transient, could enhance the
quality of their students' experiences with easier, earlier knowledge of and
access to already established resources.Links from the NTTIF page begun this year by the committee to such
resources as the following would be helpful (see <http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/NTTIFlinks.html>):

The Teaching
Effectiveness Program

Knight Library
(and all other libraries on campus); reserve and e-reserve policies and
procedures

Computer Labs
(locations, times, and courses for faculty)

Blackboard

Multimedia
Support

Academic Affairs
and the Faculty Handbook (including a
specific section relating to nontenure-track instructional faculty, yet to be
created), with special attention given to Chapter V, “On-Campus Employee
Benefits and Services in University Programs”;Chapter VI, “Special Conditions of Employment of
Teaching Faculty”;and
Chapter VII, “Academic Affairs, Teaching, Grading, and Dealing with
Students”

Participation
in Governance

Nontenure-track faculty should be
included in the departmental and institutional structures of faculty
governance; policies should indicate their rights and obligations here,
including voting rights.

Grievances
and Appeals

Although the University has a
process in place for handling grievances and appeals that is available for all
faculty members, NTTIF often feel, given the fixed-term nature of their
employment, that using this process leaves them vulnerable to not having their
contracts renewed.The process for
informal and formal handling of grievances, including opportunities for appeal,
should be made available to NTTIF and should include guarantees that using the
grievance process will not be used as a factor in determining contract
renewals.

Orientation
and Rights

NTTIF should
receive a thorough orientation to their department and its policies from the
head or other officer, including a written copy of departmental policies.

While course loads and requirements
for full-time employment will necessarily vary among units, the university
should adhere to a few standardized practices that protect against exploitation
of NTTIF.Committee interviews
with campus units uncovered a wealth of positive models.In Romance Languages, for example,
where instructors teach three four-credit courses per term (nine courses per
year), assignments are made with the following criteria in mind:

·A teacher has no more than two different class
preparations per term.

·Teachers have compact scheduling: three classes
distributed in short time frames (e.g., 8am-9am-11am or 12pm-1pm-3pm daily,
never 8am-11am-3pm, unless requested by teacher).

·Teachers are encouraged to teach the same classes(s)
repeatedly over the course of one or two years in order to build expertise and
to avoid the burden of many new course preparations.

IV.Salary Analyses from Winter 2003 data

The UO
Office of Resource Management has supplied the NTTIF Committee with two reports
titled “University of Oregon Faculty Salary Comparison” (See
Appendices A and B).These
documents, for internal use only, give averages for tenure-related faculty at
the University of Oregon (Appendix A) and then give comparison averages for
regular, fixed-term faculty and adjunct faculty (Appendix B).The two reports provide a way to
compare fixed-term and tenure-related faculty salaries, both across the
University and within various units contained within the reports.In both reports, salary information
includes a column titled “% of UO Tenure Rank” that compares
specific salary averages within a University unit to the corresponding
University average for tenure-related faculty.The comparison is weakest for the instructor rank, since the
University had only two tenure-related instructors in March 2003.Nevertheless, the comparisons provide a
start.Appendix A shows
significant differences in average salaries of tenure-related faculty at each
rank among the various units.Appendix B shows the patterns of average salaries for regular,
fixed-term faculty as well as for adjunct faculty

While these two reports are
useful, the NTTIF Committee requested anonymous salary data from the UO Office
of Resource Management for additional analyses (see Appendices C, D, E, and
F).The intent of the additional
analyses was to provide the salary averages within departments and make
comparisons to University-wide averages and unit averages where those were
available.In many cases,
indicated by a dash, no comparisons were possible with tenure-related faculty
at the same rank and within the same unit.The NTTIF Committee is reluctant to make any strong
conclusions from any reports or analyses presented here.The data indicate wide variations in
average salaries among the various departments within the University, but
cannot factor in the individual reasons for the salaries used to generate the
averages.The committee feels that
the results are, for the moment, sufficient as information.Further analysis and research may
provide additional insights.

Appendix C shows average salaries
of adjunct faculty within departments at each rank.The data are presented in order of departments within
units.Perhaps the most interesting
columns are the last two, which show the percentage of UO tenure-related average
salaries at the same rank and the percentage of unit-specific average salaries,
again at the same rank.When both
columns have entries, the data suggest that individuals may fare better or
worse than the campus-wide percentage depending on the unit.Appendix D shows the same data, but
arranged in order of decreasing salary.Salaries for the higher ranks especially should be viewed with caution,
as these may reflect widely varying individual histories and negotiations.They are nevertheless included here for
information.Ranks within the
adjunct faculty tend to be higher than those among the regular fixed-term
faculty.

Appendices E and F give average
salaries of regular fixed-term faculty within departments at each rank, first
by department, then by salary, respectively.Although a few regular, fixed-term faculty hold ranks higher
than senior instructor, the committee felt that no purpose was served in
presenting those data.Again, no
conclusions are drawn from the results presented here, but the reader should
note that salaries again vary widely among the various departments within the
University.

The NTTIF Committee views these
reports and analyses as a good start.This year’s committee trusts that the committee will make good use
of these in subsequent years.

Finally, the committee notes the
report of the Senate Budget Committee for this year, which included information
relevant to NTTIF, quoted below:

Instructors. Accurate salary and compensation data for both
tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors for the academic year 2001-2002
are not currently available from our comparator institutions.See the report ofthe Senate Committee on Non-Tenure-Track
Instructional Faculty for the most meaningful data on this subject in
2002-2003.Using the methodology
of this report, we would conclude that instructors have climbed from 82.4% of
comparator salaries to 84.3%, placing them behind assistant and associate
professors on a percentage basis but only .3% behind full professors.

Nearly all academic institutions
report salary and total compensation figures for instructors, but the
definition of instructor used to compute these figures varies enormously
between institutions.The
University of Oregon at present has about 10 tenure-related and 260
non-tenure-track instructors (includes instructors and senior
instructors).The average salary
increase of full-time instructors in 2002-2003 was about 4%, from $50.9k to
$52.8k.Accurate salary and
compensation data to address salary comparisons for tenure-related and
non-tenure-track instructors are currently being developed.Using the methodology employed here,
instructors improved 1.9% relative to comparators in 2002-2003 to 84.3%.These comparator data place instructors
well behind assistant and associate professors but only slightly behind full
professors.During the 4-year
period instructors have actually fallen from 86.8% parity to 84.3% parity.This issue should receive attention in
the coming year.

V.2003
SURVEY OF UO NTTIF

In Winter term, 2003, the NTTIF Committee, with expert and
gratis help of Lee LaTour, Marketing Director, Erb Memorial Union, conducted
two surveys, one of NTTIF on campus and one of tenure-related faculty
here.The surveys themselves are
posted at the NTTIF Committee web site
(http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/NTTIF.html).The surveys are still being
analyzed.Resultswill be announced as soon as the analyses have been
completed.

VI.RECOMMENDATIONS

1.The University of Oregon should move to establish guidelines
and policies that address the AAUP’s recommendation regarding the percent
of instruction performed by NTTIF and for giving NTTIF stability and
professional recognition when hired on a long-term basis (see II and III,
above); in both cases, this process will require extensive participation by
relevant University committees and the University Senate, and faculty input
from both the tenured and NTTIF ranks.The results of this effort at the University level should be published
in the Faculty Handbook, which should be
updated regularly.

2.The committee should work in conjunction with the Office of
the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to provide “best practice”
models that departments can reference.Departments should be given deadlines to develop
written guidelines and policy statements; once developed, these guidelines and
policies should be available on-line, in departmental offices, and in the
Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

3.A process to monitor and track salaries for NTTIF as for TTF
should be established to make sure the goal for UO NTTIF salaries and total
compensation follows the same percentile as for TTF, that is, 95% of parity of
comparator institutions.Salary
compression for long-term NTTIF has also become a problem that should be
addressed.The Status of the NTTIF
Committee and the Senate Budget Committee should work together to prepare a
“white paper” for the NTTIF similar to the 15 March 2000 White
Paper for TTF.

4.An NTTIF advocate or ombudsman could help increasecommunication and community among members of the
NTTIF, help point NTTIF towards campus resources, and act as a repository of
knowledge regarding UO NTTIF policies and employment rights.Given the current budget situation, if
an ombudsman cannot be appointed, this duty might be performed by selected
faculty members across the campus.Future NTTIF Committee membership could be selected by drawing on
faculty would who be willing to take on these responsibilities.

5.Following the analysis of data obtained from the Winter Term,
2003, survey of UO NTTIF, this committee should present recommendations
regarding goals and policies to the Senate and hold public hearings on those
recommendations.

Appendix
F:University
of Oregon Salary Comparison of Regular, Fixed-Term Faculty (Instructors and
Senior Instructors) in Order of Descending Salary

*As
the data contained in these appendices are for internal use only, copies will
not be appended to electronic or web versions of this report.Copies are appended to the printed copy
of the report, available from the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic
Affairs.